1362 West 130 South

Orem, Utah 84058

801.226.2746

www.tybera.com

Our purpose in writing this article is to share with users the lessons learned through the deployment of a statewide electronic filing system. We will attempt to identify how the system we will present differs from other systems. We will use the examples of attorneys filing to courts as our reference in this document.

The term electronic filing has many meanings, and depending on whom you speak with, you will likely learn a new definition. As we talk with various courts throughout the U.S., and as we work with the LegalXML community, we find that there are many aspects of electronic filing. The causes for the wide variation in meanings are due to different philosophies of the developers, different laws governing each state, and the methods used to address the issues.

Our purpose in writing this article is to share with users the lessons we are learning as we progress through the deployment of a statewide electronic filing system. However, before we begin to identify the lessons learned, it is important to identify how the system that we will present differs from other systems. Without this knowledge, a user could easily miss-interpret the meaning of the lessons that will be presented. We will use the examples of attorneys filing to courts as our reference examples in this document.

The concepts and lessons presented here will apply to many different industries implementing e-filing solutions. We also anticipate that by understanding the differences in concepts the reader can make better decisions about what type of e-filing solution to deploy.

The simplest description of electronic filing is the ability to electronically transmit a document from one organization to another. There are obviously several ways to accomplish this, e-mail, FTP, HTTP, and fax.

The fax method is the easiest implementation of electronic filing. This e-filing process eliminates a courier but does not eliminate paper. When the clerk receives the submission from an attorney, the process to input the data into the court’s case management system is the same as paper filings received at the court by courier.

Some of the issues that are exposed at this earliest level are:

• How does the attorney get a receipt from the court for his filing?
• Does the process of filing electronically cost more or less?
• Can the court charge differently for one process over another?

The next level of electronic filing eliminates paper and makes it possible to electronically maintain and store the information. Significant storage space can be eliminated by using this level of electronic filing. Any paper process could use scanning to change the storage from paper to electronic methods. However, the time and equipment it takes to scan in the paper for electronic storage can be expensive.

If the format used to share the information is a TIFF image, then the process the clerk uses to input the data into the court’s case management system is the same as paper. We will delay the inclusion of word processing documents at this point because of the issues they present.

Some of the issues introduced at this level with just TIFF images are:

• What method of communication is used to transmit the information?
• How do you keep the communication private?

Another aspect of this second level of electronic filing deals with the ability to share documents for a single case. There have been several instances where certain cases will generate thousands of documents. Because of the need to reduce paper, courts have mandated that a common location to post documents be identified.

This common storage location allows all the attorneys, judges, and parties of interest to post new documents for the case, receive notification when new documents are posted, and access the documents relevant to the case. The process of posting documents in this system generally eliminates the clerk’s process of accepting the documents at the court. This process does not usually affect the court case management system.

Some of the issues that become relevant in this e-filing system are:

• Where is the official document of the court stored?
• Who owns the server that stores the official documents for the court?

Generally the formats of documents posted in repositories are either word processing documents or Adobe pdf format. In order to make this system work, we must trust that the repository is secure, the transmission is secure, and that only authorized people can access the documents.

The third level of electronic filing introduces the concepts of automation. When an attorney sends a filing to the court in this type of a system, some information can be in word processing format, but the information needed to automate processes must be in a special format. The attorney must send information about the defendants, plaintiffs, and case type to the court in a format that a computer program can interpret. By so doing, a program can automatically read the automation information and load the information about the submission into the court’s case management system.

For each process the court wants to automate additional information is required. For example, if the court wants to automate the process of collecting filing fees, the information about the credit card must be included in a format that a program can interpret.

The format used to represent the automation data can vary from one system to another. In one project a court created a system where attorneys would use specific templates in Microsoft Word, or Corel WordPerfect to prepare their filings. As long as the electronic filings conformed to the specific templates, the court could extract the automation information. The attorneys easily adopted this system because they were familiar with their word processors, and conforming to the templates was not a difficult task.

In another system the court required the attorneys to create ASCII flat files to represent the automation data. These files are organized by associating an input field name, such as PLAINTIFF, with a value such as JOHN DOE. The documents that contain the main body of information for the cases are represented in RTF format. Attachments for supporting evidence, such as a contract, can be scanned into TIFF images and included in a submission. The information in the ASCII flat file is used to automatically load the about the case in the court’s case management system.

In most of the examples so far the attorneys submit their filings directly to the courts. In the fax example the official time of submission is when the court clerk receives the documents and posts the information. In the automation examples, the official time of submission is when the court computer receives the information and updates the case management system.

In one of the earlier examples we discussed a central repository. Many existing vendors use this model to mange the electronic filing process. In these cases the attorney submits his filings to the central document repository established by a third party vendor, and the court clerk downloads the information about the case to the court case management system.

The official time of filing begins to blur and becomes a court ruling. A decide must be made to determine whether the official time of the submission is when the document repository received the filing, or when the court clerk downloaded the filing and updates the court’s case management system. Most vendors that operate in this model provide software to be installed at the courts so that the case management system can be automatically updated. However, the official document of the court may not be downloaded but remain in the document repository of the vendor.

With this type of configuration several business decisions become relevant. These issues include:

• Who controls the original court document?
• Where are the original documents stored?
• At what point is the electronic filing stamped as received?
• How does the court control the integrity of the documents during transmission?
• How do we protect the document from being tampered with when stored in the central repository?
• Are electronic signatures needed? How do we identify that the right user posted the documents?
• Should it cost more to file electronically?
• How does the vendor who controls the central document repository make a profit?
• Who determines which people can send documents to the courts?
• Does the court contract with a single vendor who controls the document repository?
• Does this model prevent the courts from using other document repositories or Application Service Providers "ASP"?
• If the court allows more than one ASP does that mean there will be more than one document repository?
• Can any organization develop and install software to electronically file to the courts without pre-approval by the courts?

Most of the existing vendor solutions use an ASP configuration with a central document repository where the attorneys submit filings. This off loads the burden of managing large volumes of documents and user accounts from the courts to the service providers. In return for this service, the service provider charges the attorney to use the system. The fee structure varies from vendor to vendor, some providers charge a transaction fee to the attorneys for each submission, and other vendors charge the attorney by controlling secondary services such as the summons process.

Because it is XML-based it defines fields to store automation data. This standard recognizes the need for Security, document integrity, and interoperability among ASP vendors. This standard does not yet define how court fees are collected, how transaction fees are distributed among ASP vendors, how to deal with document repositories, or where the official documents of the courts are stored. This is not to say that these issues have not been discussed, just simply that the Court Filing 1.1 DTD and documentation does not clearly define how this functions.

The fourth level of electronic filing deals with the compounded complexities of a system that provides for two-way automation process with multiple installations. This means that the attorneys can automate their electronic filing procedures by integrating software into their existing case management systems. This software communicates directly to the courts electronic filing system. In addition, it allows Application Service Providers with the ability to support attorneys that do not want to automate their processes.

At the same time, where multiple attorneys have software installed, they can electronically file to each other without using and ASP to facilitate the process. Also, this configuration allows attorneys to let their customers file documents electronically to them in the same manner they file to the courts.

Some of the issues that we will address using this model are:

• The business requirements of this system
• How the court can control what the business model
• How multiple ASP vendors can participate
• The simple interface to attorneys that don’t automate their own system
• Methods of dealing with Digital Certificates and Digital Signatures.
• How multiple document repositories can participate
• Filing fee collection
• Digitally signed court receipts
• Document integrity
• System security
• How this system uses the Court Filing 1.1 DTD.
• We look forward to presenting this information in the next article.